How in the Federalist Papers James Madison Argued Against Democracy in Favor of a Republic

Executive Summary

• The term democracy describes the US political system while ignoring what the founding fathers wrote about democracy.

Introduction

The vast majority of the globe, including Americans, believes the US is a democracy.

In this article, we will review the Federalist Papers and discuss every mention of the term democracy, and then later in the article I will cover interesting quotes from the Federalist Papers about the republican form of government.

The New York Times Article on the Le Pen Victory

Before getting into the Federalist Papers, it is instructive to analyze a quote from the New York Times to see how the term democracy is constantly slathered like butter on bread to describe the US (and other political systems).

The following few quotes from an article in the billionaire-controlled New York Times explain the different meanings of the term democracy or democratic when used by billionaires or those employed to write by billionaires. This article is about the French election between Macron and Le Pen.

A Fair Election Shows a Fissure in Western Democracy?

WASHINGTON — U.S. officials are anxiously watching the French presidential election, aware that the outcome of the vote on Sunday could scramble President Biden’s relations with Europe and reveal dangerous fissures in Western democracy. – New York Times

This is a misuse of the term democracy. A republic is a correct word for a system where representatives are voted for. However, the elites constantly use the term “democracy” to show that political systems are more controlled by the public than they are.

Secondly, the US is not a democracy; it is also categorized as a republic, and the term democracy does not appear anywhere in the Constitution. Elites use money to influence elections with high degrees of success. Therefore, the US questionably meets the standards of being a republic. A proper republican government would remove money from the equation and allow unadulterated voting for representatives.

The Term Democracy in The Federalist Papers

The question of “is the US a democracy” or “is the US a republic” is answered in the Federalist Papers. These provide the background thinking to what eventually became the US Constitution and Bill of Rights.

One of the Federalist Papers chapters that covers democracy is Nos. 10, 14, and 48. All of these chapters were written by James Madison. Overall, the Federalist Papers were written by three writers: Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay. The Federalist Papers are described as follows.

The joint work of Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay, The Federalist papers
were written to defend and explain the recently drafted Federal Constitution, and promote its
ratification in the state of New York. Published seriatim in New York City newspapers from
October 1787 to August 1788, the eighty-five essays appeared under the pseudonym “Publius,” a
legendary founder of the Roman republic and “friend of the people.”

The idea for The Federalist originated with Alexander Hamilton, who tapped fellow New Yorker
John Jay and Virginia congressman James Madison as collaborators.

Of the three, James Madison is the “specialist” in selecting the appropriate government for the US. James Madison researched what form of government the US should adopt. The term democracy is used so few times in the Federalist Papers that I will cover all instances of it in this article.

Democracy Quote #1: from Federalist No. 10 – The Utility of the Union as a Safeguard Against Domestic Faction and Insurrection (continued) Written by James Madison Daily Advertiser, November 22, 1787

From this view of the subject it may be concluded that a pure democracy, by which I mean a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person, can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole; a communication and concert result from the form of government itself; and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths. Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions.

Here, Madison declares that democracy supporters are guilty of utopianism when democracy is unfamiliar with how democracy was practiced in the Greek states.

 Madison on How a Republic is Better than a Democracy

A republic, by which I mean a government in which the scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect, and promises the cure for which we are seeking.

Let us examine the points in which it varies from pure democracy, and we shall comprehend both the nature of the cure and the efficacy which it must derive from the Union. The two great points of difference between a democracy and a republic are: first, the delegation of the government, in the latter, to a small number of citizens elected by the rest; secondly, the greater number of citizens, and greater sphere of country, over which the latter may be extended.

The effect of the first difference is, on the one hand, to refine and enlarge the public views, by passing them through the medium of a chosen body of citizens, whose wisdom may best discern the true interest of their country, and whose patriotism and love of justice will be least likely to sacrifice it to temporary or partial considerations. Under such a regulation, it may well happen that the public voice, pronounced by the representatives of the people, will be more consonant to the public good than if pronounced by the people themselves, convened for the purpose.

On the other hand, the effect may be inverted. Men of factious tempers, of local prejudices, or of sinister designs, may, by intrigue, by corruption, or by other means, first obtain the suffrages, and then betray the interests, of the people.

Here, Madison states that representatives will be more consonant with the public good than if stated by the people. This is a clear assertion of the superiority of the representative’s judgment over that of the people directly voting.

Madison on The “Confusion of the Multitude”

In the first place, it is to be remarked that, however small the republic may be, the representatives must be raised to a certain number, in order to guard against the cabals of a few; and that, however large it may be, they must be limited to a certain number, in order to guard against the confusion of a multitude. Hence, the number of representatives in the two cases not being in proportion to that of the two constituents, and being proportionally greater in the small republic, it follows that, if the proportion of fit characters be not less in the large than in the small.

There are again two methods of removing the causes of faction: the one, by destroying the liberty which is essential to its existence; the other, by giving to every citizen the same opinions, the same passions, and the same interests. It could never be more truly said than of the first remedy, that it was worse than the disease. Liberty is to faction what air is to fire, an aliment without which it instantly expires. But it could not be less folly to abolish liberty, which is essential to political life, because it nourishes faction, than it would be to wish the annihilation of air, which is essential to animal life, because it imparts to fire its destructive agency.

This is a clear preference shown for a republic over a democracy.

Democracy Quote #2: Federalist No. 14 – Objections to the Proposed Constitution From Extent of Territory Answered Written by James Madison New York Packet, November 30, 1787

Democracy is discussed again by James Madison in the Federalist book #14.

WE HAVE seen the necessity of the Union, as our bulwark against foreign danger, as the conservator of peace among ourselves, as the guardian of our commerce and other common interests, as the only substitute for those military establishments which have subverted the liberties of the Old World, and as the proper antidote for the diseases of faction, which have proved fatal to other popular governments, and of which alarming symptoms have been betrayed by our own. All that remains, within this branch of our inquiries, is to take notice of an objection that may be drawn from the great extent of country which the Union embraces.

A few observations on this subject will be the more proper, as it is perceived that the adversaries of the new Constitution are availing themselves of the prevailing prejudice with regard to the practicable sphere of republican administration, in order to supply, by imaginary difficulties, the want of those solid objections which they endeavor in vain to find. The error which limits republican government to a narrow district has been unfolded and refuted in preceding papers. I remark here only that it seems to owe its rise and prevalence chiefly to the confounding of a republic with a democracy, applying to the former reasonings drawn from the nature of the latter. The true distinction between these forms was also adverted to on a former occasion.

It is, that in a democracy, the people meet and exercise the government in person; in a republic, they assemble and administer it by their representatives and agents. A democracy, consequently, will be confined to a small spot. A republic may be extended over a large region.

Therefore, Madison proposes that a democracy is untenable over a large region.

To this accidental source of the error may be added the artifice of some celebrated authors, whose writings have had a great share in forming the modern standard of political opinions. Being subjects either of an absolute or limited monarchy, they have endeavored to heighten the advantages, or palliate the evils of those forms, by placing in comparison the vices and defects of the republican, and by citing as specimens of the latter the turbulent democracies of ancient Greece and modern Italy.

Under the confusion of names, it has been an easy task to transfer to a republic observations applicable to a democracy only; and among others, the observation that it can never be established but among a small number of people, living within a small compass of territory.

Madison’s point here is that democracies do not scale and are geographically limited. Naturally, this was before the development of computer technologies and communications. However, there is a scaling issue with democracy. In Athens, the number of voters was roughly 30,000, and the other Greek states that instituted democracy were smaller than this. When people speak of democracy today, I doubt many know that the number of voters in Greek state democracy was so small. Overall the small size of the voting public tends to be left out of discussions of democracy.

Madison on The Concentration of the Power in Government With a Diffused Area

The power in government, by the simple agency of which the will of the largest political body may be concentred, and its force directed to any object which the public good requires, America can claim the merit of making the discovery the basis of unmixed and extensive republics. It is only to be lamented that any of her citizens should wish to deprive her of the additional merit of displaying its full efficacy in the establishment of the comprehensive system now under her consideration. As the natural limit of a democracy is that distance from the central point which will just permit the most remote citizens to assemble as often as their public functions demand, and will include no greater number than can join in those functions; so the natural limit of a republic is that distance from the centre which will barely allow the representatives to meet as often as may be necessary for the administration of public affairs. Can it be said that the limits of the United States exceed this distance? It will not be said by those who recollect that the Atlantic coast is the longest side of the Union, that during the term of thirteen years, the representatives of the States have been almost continually assembled, and that the members from the most distant States are not chargeable with greater intermissions of attendance than those from the States in the neighborhood of Congress. That we may form a juster estimate with regard to this interesting subject, let us resort to the actual dimensions of the Union. The limits, as fixed by the treaty of peace, are: on the east the Atlantic, on the south the latitude of thirty-one degrees, on the west the Mississippi, and on the north an irregular line running in some instances beyond the forty-fifth degree, in others falling as low as the forty-second. The southern shore of Lake Erie lies below that latitude. Computing the distance between the thirty-first and forty-fifth degrees, it amounts to nine hundred and seventy-three common miles; computing it from thirty-one to forty-two degrees, to seven hundred and sixty-four miles and a half.

Taking the mean for the distance, the amount will be eight hundred and sixty-eight miles and three-fourths. The mean distance from the Atlantic to the Mississippi does not probably exceed seven hundred and fifty miles. On a comparison of this extent with that of several countries in Europe, the practicability of rendering our system commensurate to it appears to be demonstrable. It is not a great deal larger than Germany, where a diet representing the whole empire is continually assembled; or than Poland before the late dismemberment, where another national diet was the depositary of the supreme power. Passing by France and Spain, we find that in Great Britain, inferior as it may be in size, the representatives of the northern extremity of the island have as far to travel to the national council as will be required of those of the most remote parts of the Union.

This is a rambling way of saying that the US was significant even then.

And that distance matters and reduces the applicability of democracy. The following analysis reinforces his interpretation.

The following quote is from an analysis of the Federalist Papers on this topic. This is really just a synopsis of what I have covered up to this point.

Madison’s reading convinced him that direct democracies—such as the assembly in Athens, where 6,000 citizens were required for a quorum—unleashed populist passions that overcame the cool, deliberative reason prized above all by Enlightenment thinkers. “In all very numerous assemblies, of whatever characters composed, passion never fails to wrest the sceptre from reason,” he argued in The Federalist Papers, the essays he wrote (along with Alexander Hamilton and John Jay) to build support for the ratification of the Constitution.

According to classical theory, republics could exist only in relatively small territories, where citizens knew one another personally and could assemble face-to-face. Plato would have capped the number of citizens capable of self-government at 5,040. Madison, however, thought Plato’s small-republic thesis was wrong. He believed that the ease of communication in small republics was precisely what had allowed hastily formed majorities to oppress minorities. – The Atlantic

Democracy Quote #3: Federalist No. 48 – These Departments Should Not Be So Far Separated as to Have No Constitutional Control Over Each Other Written by James Madison New York Packet, Friday, February 1, 1788

The final book that discusses democracy is the 48 books of the Federalist Papers.

In a democracy, where a multitude of people exercise in person the legislative functions, and are continually exposed, by their incapacity for regular deliberation and concerted measures, to the ambitious intrigues of their executive magistrates, tyranny may well be apprehended, on some favorable emergency, to start up in the same quarter.

This is the argument that the people lack the regular deliberation that representatives possess.

Madison’s Argument of Intrepid Confidence of Representatives

But in a representative republic, where the executive magistracy is carefully limited; both in the extent and the duration of its power; and where the legislative power is exercised by an assembly, which is inspired, by a supposed influence over the people, with an intrepid confidence in its own strength; which is sufficiently numerous to feel all the passions which actuate a multitude, yet not so numerous as to be incapable of pursuing the objects of its passions, by means which reason prescribes; it is against the enterprising ambition of this department that the people ought to indulge all their jealousy and exhaust all their precautions.

It isn’t easy to understand what Madison is saying here. It seems very flowery in that the representatives somehow have intrepid confidence.

However, my objective is not to analyze Madison’s arguments for republics over democracies but to represent what he proposed as a desirable system.

How The Founders Used Rome, Not Athens (from the 6th to 4th century BC) As a Model for the US Government

The following components of the Roman government model should be familiar to any American.

The Founding Fathers preferred to fashion the United States on the Roman model, which eschewed monarchy but allowed for indirect popular influence through elected representatives.

The Roman model of government had three branches:

The legislative branch was made up of two bodies. The first was the Senate which was aristocratic and made up of former leaders of Rome. The second was the Assembly made up of the populous which voted by tribe. These are similar to the present US Senate and the House of Representatives.

The executive branch consisted of two Consuls who shared power and acted as heads of state in a manner similar to current presidents.

Lastly, a judicial branch existed made up of eight judges that the US Supreme Court was modeled on. – Itching Ear

This fact is also found in Article Four Section Four of the US Constitution.

The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on application of the legislature, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence. – US Constitution

If the founders wanted a democracy, there would have been no Senate or House of Representatives. And there are more similarities.

When the US Constitution was finally drafted in 1787, it was non-democratic according to the Greek definition and based on the Roman Republic model. It had checks and balances, limited representation by the people, and gave government various freedoms while restricting others. – Itching Ear

The constant growth in voting rights can be seen at the following link.

Obverse that the founders only allowed and only expected a small fraction of the population to vote. This is explained in the following quotation.

First, as we’ve noted before, the right to vote has been among the most ill-defined of all the rights enumerated in the United States Constitution. According to Jill Lepore, perhaps 6% of the entire American population was eligible to vote in the first presidential election. Excluded were those younger than 21, all women, all slaves and other blacks and a large number of white men who didn’t have sufficient property, although Donald Ratcliff argues that many more white men were able to vote than is often asserted.

Nevertheless, the franchise was quite limited, and it took the better part of two centuries to expand it to all adults over the age of 18. – Itching Ear

In the first US presidential election, it is estimated that 1% of the population cast a vote. Secondly, no citizen cast votes for the Senate until that was changed in 1913, as is explained in the following quotation.

Senators were not directly elected by the people until the adoption of the Seventeenth Amendment in 1913. – Wikipedia

The Reality of the Republic Created by the Founding Fathers

The founding fathers not only designed a republic rather than a democracy, but they also significantly restricted voting even within the republican context. That is, the founders only seemed to want a small fraction of the US citizens to be able to vote for representatives.

However, the statements in the Federalist Papers about how large or small the voting public should be as a percentage of the overall public are not specific. The founders did not wish blacks, women, or men to vote below a sufficient property threshold. Much is made of the “racist” and “sexist” restrictions on voting, but what is left out is that the founders did not want the vast majority of white men to vote either. Focusing on non-whites and women, not voting, makes it sound like the system was entirely set up for white men when it also was not. This is yet another example of projecting onto history rather than reading history.

Pretending That All White Men Had the Vote From The Beginning

Observe that when Andrew Jackson pushed for universal white male suffrage, it is barely known today, and in fact, I had difficulty finding much written about this. The details of when and what percentage of white men got the right to vote are a bit hazy, as you can read in the following link. This is partly because most of the population wants to believe that all white men obtained ballots at the beginning of the US republic.

This fits with the false understanding but the desired knowledge that the US was a very inclusive political system from its origin and that only racism and sexism prevented the right of every citizen to vote.

This video does an excellent job of explaining why the US is a republic and that the founders agreed to this design. 

How National Geographic (as with much mainstream media) Misrepresents the US as a Democracy

No matter what the Federalist Papers say, most media still say the US was set up as a democracy. An excellent example of this is found in the quotes from an article in National Geographic.

The United States has a complex government system. One important tenet of this system is democracy, in which the ultimate power rests with the people. In the case of the United States, that power is exercised indirectly, through elected representatives. Although the U.S. has been a strong proponent of democracy, it did not invent democracy.

Yes, this is called a republic.

To co-opt the term democracy, the elites needed to change the definition of Greek democracy roughly 2500 years after the term had been agreed to. Greek democracy was no longer democracy but was “direct democracy.” Another trick has been to call republics “representative democracies.” That is a democracy, where votes are cast for representatives and not the actual issue, a republic.

The last part of the paragraph proposes that the US has been a strong proponent of something it never has and then states that it seeks to educate the reader by stating that something the US is not is something it strongly proposes.

This was a momentous task, and for guidance they looked to what they deemed the best philosophies and examples of government throughout world history. Along with the Roman model, the democratic model of ancient Greece’s system of self-government greatly influenced how the founding fathers set out to construct the new United States government.

The Roman model is a republic. It is curious how NG mentions that the US drew inspiration from the Roman model but then leaves out Rome’s political design.

The contradictions in the Federalist Papers against the democratic system have already been discussed in this article, something NG keeps from its readers.

Another important ancient Greek concept that influenced the formation of the United States government was the written constitution.

All governments, particularly modern ones, have a constitution, and Saudi Arabia has one, which you can read here.

Here is the intro.

Article 1
The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is a sovereign Arab Islamic state with Islam as its religion; God’s Book and the Sunnah of His Prophet, God’s prayers and peace be upon him, are its constitution, Arabic is its language and Riyadh is its capital.

Article 2
The state’s public holidays are Id al-Fitr and Id al-Adha. Its calendar is the Hegira calendar.

Article 3
The state’s flag shall be as follows:
(a) It shall be green.
(b) Its width shall be equal to two-thirds of it’s length.
(c) The words “There is but one God and Mohammed is His Prophet” shall be inscribed in the center with a drawn sword under it. The statute shall define the rules pertaining to it.

Article 4
The state’s emblem shall consist of two crossed swords with a palm tree in the upper space between them. The statute shall define the state’s anthem and its medals.

Chapter 2 [Monarchy]

Article 5
(a) The system of government in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is that of a monarchy.
(b) Rule passes to the sons of the founding King, Abd al-Aziz Bin Abd al-Rahman al-Faysal Al Sa’ud, and to their children’s children. The most upright among them is to receive allegiance in accordance with the principles of the Holy Koran and the Tradition of the Venerable Prophet.

NG seems to be proposing that having a written constitution makes a country a democracy, but Saudi Arabia has a written constitution but is an Absolute Monarchy.

Did Saudi Arabia also draw inspiration from Athens?

Aristotle, or possibly one of his students, compiled and recorded The Constitution of the Athenians and the laws of many other Greek city-states. Having a written constitution creates a common standard as to how people should behave and what rules they must follow. It also establishes clear processes by which people who break the law are judged and those who are harmed as a result can be compensated or given justice.

Is National Geographic also aware that Aristotle did not think democracy was the best form of government, and that he preferred monarchy over democracy?

For Aristotle, democracy is not the best form of government. As is also true of oligarchy and monarchy, rule in a democracy is for and by the people named in the government type. In a democracy, rule is by and for the needy. In contrast, rule of law or aristocracy (literally, power [rule] of the best) or even monarchy, where the ruler has the interest of his country at heart, are better types of government. Government, Aristotle says, should be by those people with enough time on their hands to pursue virtue. This is a far cry from the current U.S. drive towards campaign financing laws designed to make the political life available even to those without well-endowed fathers. It is also very different from the modern career politician who derives his wealth at the expense of the citizenry. Aristotle thinks rulers should be propertied and leisured, so, without other worries, they can invest their time in producing virtue. Laborers are too busy. – Thought Co.

No, National Geographic decided to leave that out. In many cases, while it is prestigious to mention Aristotle’s name, it is less important to explain what Aristotle thought.

The quote from National Geographic continues.

Like The Constitution of the Athenians, the U.S. Constitution is a vital document. It lays out the government’s structure and how the checks and balances of power within it relate to one another. The U.S. Constitution acts as the supreme law of the country and establishes individual citizens’ rights, such as the right to free speech or the right to a trial by a jury of one’s peers. Today, the U.S. Constitution is still regularly referenced in law as the supreme law of the land and is enforced by the U.S. Supreme Court, the country’s highest court. – National Geographic

None of that, and the fact the US Constitution, like all constitutions, is a “vital document,” says anything about whether the US is a democracy.

It is straightforward to catch where this National Geographic author excludes essential information that they must be aware of to convince the reader of something false.

Reading National Geographic’s explanation of the Roman political system is just as interesting.

The Roman Republic describes the period in which the city-state of Rome existed as a republican government, from 509 B.C. to 27 B.C. Rome’s republican government is one of the earliest examples of representative democracy in the world. – National Geographic

So, was Rome a republic or a representative democracy? The answer is both because representative democracy is a modern term for a republic.

Promoters of the idea that all republics would be called representative democracies point to the fact that there are some referendums with direct voting on an issue. The following quotation explains this.

The constitution may also provide for some deliberative democracy (e.g., Royal Commissions) or direct popular measures (e.g., initiative, referendum, recall elections). However, these are not always binding and usually require some legislative action—legal power usually remains firmly with representatives. – Wikipedia

Anyone living in one of these republics…oh, excuse me, “representative democracies” should ask themselves the question — over what percentage of the total local, state, and national legislation do they vote on by referendum? Furthermore, even the Roman Republic, sorry Roman Representative Democracy, had some direct voting, as is explained in the following quotation.

The Roman Republic was the first known state in the western world to have a representative government, despite taking the form of a direct government in the Roman assemblies. The Roman model of governance would inspire many political thinkers over the centuries, and today’s modern representative democracies imitate more the Roman than the Greek model, because it was a state in which supreme power was held by the people and their elected representatives, and which had an elected or nominated leader. – Wikipedia

Yes, modern democracies imitate the Roman and Greek models because they are republics, not democracies.

On the Roman Republic

The Roman Republican system is well explained in this video. 

Essential Quotes on Republics from the Federalist Papers

The term “republic” or “republican” is used 205 times in the Federalist Papers. At that time, “republican” meant a form of government, as the Republican party did not yet exist when the Federalist Papers were written.

The following are interesting quotes I pulled from the Federalist Papers or quotes about the Federalist Papers on a republican form of government.

Important Point #1: Madison Questioning if Republics Are Less Addicted to War Than Monarchies

Have republics in practice been less addicted to war than monarchies? Are not the former administered by men as well as the latter? Are there not aversions, predilections, rivalships, and desires of unjust acquisitions, that affect nations as well as kings?

Are not popular assemblies frequently subject to the impulses of rage, resentment, jealousy, avarice, and of other irregular and violent propensities? Is it not well known that their determinations are often governed by a few individuals in whom they place confidence, and are, of course, liable to be tinctured by the passions and views of those individuals? Has commerce hitherto done anything more than change the objects of war? Is not the love of wealth as domineering and enterprising a passion as that of power or glory?

Sparta, Athens, Rome, and Carthage were all republics; two of them, Athens and Carthage, of the commercial kind. Yet were they as often engaged in wars, offensive and defensive, as the neighboring monarchies of the same times. Sparta was little better than a well-regulated camp; and Rome was never sated of carnage and conquest.

Carthage, though a commercial republic, was the aggressor in the very war that ended in her destruction. Hannibal had carried her arms into the heart of Italy and to the gates of Rome, before Scipio, in turn, gave him an overthrow in the territories of Carthage, and made a conquest of the commonwealth.

Venice, in later times, figured more than once in wars of ambition, till, becoming an object to the other Italian states, Pope Julius II. found means to accomplish that formidable league, which gave a deadly blow to the power and pride of this haughty republic.

The provinces of Holland, till they were overwhelmed in debts and taxes, took a leading and conspicuous part in the wars of Europe. They had furious contests with England for the dominion of the sea, and were among the most persevering and most implacable of the opponents of Louis XIV.

In that memorable struggle for superiority between the rival houses of Austria and Bourbon, which so long kept Europe in a flame, it is well known that the antipathies of the English against the French, seconding the ambition, or rather the avarice.

Here, Madison proposes that republics are not less warlike than monarchies.

Important Point #2: Madison Questioning if Republics Are Less Addicted to War Than Monarchies

THE United Netherlands are a confederacy of republics, or rather of aristocracies of a very remarkable texture, yet confirming all the lessons derived from those which we have already reviewed. The union is composed of seven coequal and sovereign states, and each state or province is a composition of equal and independent cities. In all important cases, not only the provinces but the cities must be unanimous.

The sovereignty of the Union is represented by the States-General, consisting usually of about fifty deputies appointed by the provinces. They hold their seats, some for life, some for six, three, and one years; from two provinces they continue in appointment during pleasure.

The right of equal suffrage among the States is another exceptionable part of the Confederation. Every idea of proportion and every rule of fair representation conspire to condemn a principle, which gives to Rhode Island an equal weight in the scale of power with Massachusetts, or Connecticut, or New York; and to Deleware an equal voice in the national deliberations with Pennsylvania, or Virginia, or North Carolina. Its operation contradicts the fundamental maxim of republican government, which requires that the sense of the majority should prevail. Sophistry may reply, that sovereigns are equal, and that a majority of the votes of the States will be a majority of confederated America.

Here, the idea of equality between the states in the republic is presented.

Important Point #3: Madison on the Inferiority of Republics to Foreign Interference Versus Monarchies

Evils of this description ought not to be regarded as imaginary. One of the weak sides of republics, among their numerous advantages, is that they afford too easy an inlet to foreign corruption.

An hereditary monarch, though often disposed to sacrifice his subjects to his ambition, has so great a personal interest in the government and in the external glory of the nation, that it is not easy for a foreign power to give him an equivalent for what he would sacrifice by treachery to the state.

Hence it is that history furnishes us with so many mortifying examples of the prevalency of foreign corruption in republican governments. How much this contributed to the ruin of the ancient commonwealths has been already delineated. It is well known that the deputies of the United Provinces have, in various instances, been purchased by the emissaries of the neighboring kingdoms.

Important Point #4: Madison on the Genius of Republics

The genius of republican liberty seems to demand on one side, not only that all power should be derived from the people, but that those intrusted with it should be kept in independence on the people, by a short duration of their appointments; and that even during this short period the trust should be placed not in a few, but a number of hands.

Of all the objections which have been framed against the federal Constitution, this is perhaps the most extraordinary. Whilst the objection itself is levelled against a pretended oligarchy, the principle of it strikes at the very root of republican government.

The aim of every political constitution is, or ought to be, first to obtain for rulers men who possess most wisdom to discern, and most virtue to pursue, the common good of the society; and in the next place, to take the most effectual precautions for keeping them virtuous whilst they continue to hold their public trust. The elective mode of obtaining rulers is the characteristic policy of republican government.

Let me now ask what circumstance there is in the constitution of the House of Representatives that violates the principles of republican government, or favors the elevation of the few on the ruins of the many? Let me ask whether every circumstance is not, on the contrary, strictly conformable to these principles, and scrupulously impartial to the rights and pretensions of every class and description of citizens?

Important Point #5: Madison On Who Are the Electors

Who are to be the electors of the federal representatives? Not the rich, more than the poor; not the learned, more than the ignorant; not the haughty heirs of distinguished names, more than the humble sons of obscurity and unpropitious fortune. The electors are to be the great body of the people of the United States. They are to be the same who exercise the right in every State of electing the corresponding branch of the legislature of the State.

This states that the electors are to be the “great body” of people in the United States. However, for the majority of US history, the percentage of people who could vote was much smaller than what is explained here.

Who are to be the objects of popular choice? Every citizen whose merit may recommend him to the esteem and confidence of his country. No qualification of wealth, of birth, of religious faith, or of civil profession is permitted to fetter the judgement or disappoint the inclination of the people

Important Point #6: Which Branch of Government Was Feared to Become Aristocratic?

3. What branch of government was accused of being aristocratic? Why?

Many anti-federalists argued that the Senate would become an American aristocracy. In the original, unamended Constitution, Senators were to be elected by the state legislatures rather than directly by the people.

Notice this contradicts the previous statement about the electors being the “great body” of the United States. Now, of course, senators are elected unless they cannot serve their term, and then they are nominated by the governor of the state.

This, combined with senatorial powers over presidential appointments to the executive and judiciary branch and treaties with foreign powers, led many to fear that the relatively small Senate would have excessive powers. Having just fought a war for independence from aristocratic England, Americans were keen to avoid recreating an aristocracy of their own.

The Senate is an aristocracy, with the average net worth of a Senator being extremely high compared to an ordinary citizen, and just as problematic, the wealth of senators increases dramatically once elected. Many are known to engage in insider trading as being a senator provides a person with a great deal of non-public information.

Conclusion

The term democracy is not used anywhere in the US Constitution and the Federalist Papers – except to contrast it to the republic and explain why a republic is superior to a democracy. The Federalist Papers, where one looks to see what the founders thought when they created these documents, show that they intended to set up a republic. Furthermore, the founders were well aware of democracies, their promise, and their reality and were far better educated on the history of democracy than the modern US public. The founders stated very clearly and on many occasions in the documents they left behind that they did not want a democratic form of government for the US.

Even if 100% of the adult-age citizenry had been suffrage from the beginning of the country, this would still not have changed the political system of the US, as suffrage was to elect representatives, not to vote on referendums. Expanded suffrage within a republican form of government does not convert that political system into a democracy. Votes are cast in both democracies and republics, and the question is what is being voted for. However, the founders did not create a republic with broad based suffrage, they created a republic that dictated that only a small fraction of the society could vote for representatives.

What is humorous about this is that a group of men created a system where perhaps 6% of the population had a right to vote for president, and 0% voted for members of the senate. They are often referred to as the “fathers of democracy.”

When Historical Reality is Just Not Good Enough

This is because this system does not comport with modern sensibilities, and therefore, this history has been suppressed in favor of more appealing historying. The general public cannot fathom or accept how little voting participation the Founding Fathers wanted from the public. Therefore, this issue has also been cast as only a matter of sexism and racism, with the fact that the majority of white men also did not have voting erased from the public’s understanding. The white male suffrage obtained in the 1920s to the 1850s (led by Andrew Jackson) was eliminated from the collective experience and not celebrated as female suffrage or black suffrage.

This conversion of reality allows us to say that countries that have Republican forms of government are actually democracies by changing the definitions of words. It also allows us to claim that the US founding fathers always intended to create a democracy, even though they said and wrote repeatedly that they created a republic.